“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous and it has to end.”

U.S. Senators Clueless Susan Collins and Open-Borders Angus King, along with Resister Rep. Chellie Pingree also gave statements to the Portland Press Herald, challenging the President and supporting Birthright Citizenship.

“I completely disagree with that,” Sen. Collins said. “If you are born in this country, you are an American. To me, it’s that simple.”

Sen. Collins went on to say the executive order would likely be challenged in court and fail. Many Constitutional scholars would disagree with Sen. Collins.

“I’m concerned about any president trying to rewrite the Constitution by themselves,” Sen. King said. “That’s not the way our process works. I think there would almost certainly be a lawsuit and the courts will decide. But the 14th Amendment of the Constitution is very clear.”

Again, many Constitutional scholars disagree with the Democrat-in-Disguise, King Angus’ interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

“No President has the power to unilaterally change the constitution, nor should they,” Rep. Pingree said. “Just as his claims of passing a tax bill while Congress is out of session were false, President Trump’s comments about American-born children are also untrue. One week before an election he has deliberately diverted attention away from his administration’s attempts to undo patient protections for people with pre-existing conditions and their deficit-exploding tax cuts for corporations.”

Rep. Pingree’s opponent in the Midterm elections, Republican Mark Holbrook tells Maine First Media Resister Rep. is once again showing her San Francisco values.

“Pingree is spouting the San Francisco party line,” Mark Holbrook said. “The 14th Amendment has a segment that is often omitted to the convince of progressive liberals, and it is ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ It refers to the distinction between citizens of the United States and to people obligated to the rule of law of some other country by virtue of their citizenship to the other country. It means that if you are an American citizen, then your child will be an American citizen — but if you are a citizen of some other country and give birth in our country, the child is a citizen of the country you are from. End of story.”

“The progressive liberals try to increase their voter base in any way they can,” Holbrook said. “And they believe granting citizenship by allowing foreign nationals to give birth here and granting the child citizenship they are doing just that. Despicable.”

Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Bashful Bruce Poliquin released a statement sitting on the fence.

“Certainly any executive order or law must pass Constitutional muster,” Rep. Poliquin said.

You’ll notice in the PPH “report,” the Fake News outlet quotes Maine’s D.C. delegation and criticize the President, but they don’t get into details about the impacts Birthright Citizenship has on America. PPH spent much of the article talking about incivility in politics — but again, no details on the downsides of Birthright Citizenship.

While the President was using hyperbole to make his point, he’s not far off.

Here are some more facts about Birthright Citizenship from the Center of Immigration Studies:

No European country grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens.

The global trend is moving away from automatic birthright citizenship as many countries that once had such policies have ended them in recent decades.

14th Amendment history seems to indicate that the Citizenship Clause was never intended to benefit illegal aliens nor legal foreign visitors temporarily present in the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the U.S.-born children of permanent resident aliens are covered by the Citizenship Clause, but the Court has never decided whether the same rule applies to the children of aliens whose presence in the United States is temporary or illegal.

Some eminent scholars and jurists have concluded that it is within the power of Congress to define the scope of the Citizenship Clause through legislation and that birthright citizenship for the children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens could likely be abolished by statute without amending the Constitution.

According to the Washington Examiner, a new report shows the costs of illegal aliens giving birth in the U.S. is far outweighing what it would cost to build a big, beautiful border wall.

Women in the United States illegally had 297,000 children in 2014 at a cost of $2.4 billion. That is $800 million more than the Senate has approved for Trump’s border wall this year and enough to pay for the wall over 10 years.

And while PPH tried to make President Trump seem extreme, there is also a movement in Canada to do away with Birthright Citizenship. And the U.S. and Canada aren’t along. In recent years, several countries have repealed Birthright Citizenship, including:

Australia (2007)

New Zealand (2005)

Ireland (2005)

France (1993)

India (1987)

Malta (1989)

UK (1983)

Portugal (1981)

Birthright Citizenship was introduced as part of the 14th Amendment. It was meant to ensure citizenship for children born to former slaves — not for children born to parents who are in the United States illegally. In fact, as Holbrook pointed out, the amendment was specifically meant to avoid that very thing.

Maine First Media reached out to Sen. Eric Brakey to comment on King Angus’ stance supporting Birthright Citizenship. We’ve not heard back from the Republican from Auburn as of the time of this posting.

Post navigation

Mark Holbrook has the intelligence and character to be on the correct side of this issue. The others, not so much.

I found it noteworthy that on the full Birthright Citizenship countries list, it includes the Holy See as one country which does not have this right. The Pope, who pushes refugee resettlement, distrusts capitalism, says Islam is a religion of peace and has the protection of the walls at the Vatican, is a NIMBY hypocrite on this issue as well.

After Susan Collins voted for Kavanaugh she was getting praise and adulation from so many people. My comment about her vote was that she only did what she was supposed to do. This kind of thing is why I was not impressed with her Kavanaugh vote. She is a phony. Follow the money and power with these people to see why they want to let this violent group of people into our country free and clear. I’m sure they’ve seen the videos of the caravan throwing rocks at officials and breaking down fences.

Collins did what she was supposed to do, and did it very well. This wouldn’t matter if we knew of other GOP senators who did a better job or one as good. I can’t suggest anyone.

Doesn’t make her right on all, or any, other issues. Follow the power, always. Power is why Collins reneged on a promise to limit her terms. It always a factor, but not necessarily always the predominant one. Follow the money is a bi-partisan favorite. It makes the target corrupt and evil. Shallowness, ignorance and stupidity should be given their due.